Memory is cheap. High UI latency and cross-browser crashes aren't. Sorry.
Paging isn't cheap; neither are cache misses.
Firefox 7 will use up to 50% less memory
91–100 of 102 posts
Re: Firefox 7 will use up to 50% less memory
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hint: use multiple windows. One window with few tabs is for programming to-reads, second windows - with sites from searching for some item to buy, third - with stock information, etc. This way accumulating 100+ tabs is really not a big deal and it still remains manageable. Until FF crashes or, worse yet, grinds to a halt that is. "We are sorry, it is so embarrasing" it would say on a restart and then get herniated ag…
Yeah, I know, I should take my question to Stack Overflow, but does anyone know how to configure FF to not try to reopen tabs after a crash? (Takes a long time on my old machine.)
A while back I remember using an extension that would restore all of your previous tabs on start up, but not actually load them until you clicked on them. It fixed the situation you describe, but sadly it looks like it no longer works with the current version of Firefox.
Re: Firefox 7 will use up to 50% less memory
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm in a remote area with limited Internet - 364 kbps down 128 kbps up shared among 20-30 office workers and over 100 residents. My computer can handle keeping tabs open in case I didn't properly solve the problem before, or if something similar crops up. So, I have a lot of reference materials open on my desk, and I keep them open because finding the page I was on takes a long time, and loading that page takes even…
HTTP Proxy?
It's on my to-do list. (After implementing a disaster recovery plan, cleaning up after an intrusion, and a half a dozen more important things.)
Meantime being careful about what I close does a decent job, and I don't have to maintain a proxy server.
Re: Firefox 7 will use up to 50% less memory
#94I'm reminded of MySQL. "You don't have transaction support" "Sure we do - just handle it in your code" "But I need transactions" "No you don't! That's just overarchitecting!" "No really I do" "Look how fast we are!" ... years later... "Hey look at MySQL - We have transactions! Look how great we are!" etc. I like FF. I use it. But every time there's some comment about FF memory, we usually see a bunch of people coming…
> we usually see a bunch of people coming out
None of whom are actually active Firefox or Gecko developers...
In other words, fanboys act like fanboys. Surprise!
Re: Firefox 7 will use up to 50% less memory
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I know, I should take my question to Stack Overflow, but does anyone know how to configure FF to not try to reopen tabs after a crash? (Takes a long time on my old machine.)
Well, Superuser, not Stack Overflow. Go to about:config and set browser.sessionstore.resume_from_crash to false. http://kb.mozillazine.org/Browser.sessionstore.resume_from_c...
That does what I want. Thanks.
Re: Firefox 7 will use up to 50% less memory
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can also prefix your URL/page title search string with '% ' to exclusively search open tabs :) eg: % Firefox 7 memory
Happen to know where you can find out shortcuts like those? I had no idea it was there.
Re: Firefox 7 will use up to 50% less memory
#97Since when has Firefox/Mozilla NOT promised that their next release will manage memory better?
I smirked at the headline when I saw it and I came here to say the same thing ... Every release they promise that firefox will use less memory ... hasn't happened yet AFAIK.
The Aurora channel, which is the code that will soon become Firefox 7, has some pretty big memory improvements.
Nicholas Nethercote is leading Firefox's memshrink effort and shared the results so far: http://blog.mozilla.com/nnethercote/2011/08/09/firefox-7-is-...
Re: Firefox 7 will use up to 50% less memory
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I like FF. I use it. But every time there's some comment > about FF memory, we usually see a bunch of people coming > out saying they never see FF memory issues, the OP must be > doing something wrong or have a bad system, they use their > computer non-stop for 4 years without ever even seeing FF > slow down, etc. That's because complaints about large memory use in Firefox fall into two camps, generally: 1. "I left…
> Chrome becomes very unhappy under such circumstances (since it uses about ~100 MiB per tab) You must be looking at very media heavy sites, then. Looking at Chrome's task manager (shift-escape opens it), my per-tab memory usage ranges between ~2.4MB (HN pages) to ~44MB (a youtube video). The root process is using 120MB, GPU process 50MB, and Flash 94MB. So, in total, for 20 tabs I'm using 545MB, or 27.25MB/tab. A fa…
Linux 2.6.38 x86_64, one window, 4 tabs:
VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
685m 110m 25m S 2 2.8 0:29.09 /opt/google/chrome/chrome
905m 74m 14m S 0 1.9 3:55.19 /opt/google/chrome/chrome --type=renderer --lang=en-US --force-fieldtest=ConnCountImpact/conn_count_6/ConnnectBackupJ
879m 63m 16m S 0 1.6 0:02.95 /opt/google/chrome/chrome --type=renderer --lang=en-US --force-fieldtest=ConnCountImpact/conn_count_6/ConnnectBackupJ
889m 57m 15m S 0 1.5 0:08.17 /opt/google/chrome/chrome --type=renderer --lang=en-US --force-fieldtest=ConnCountImpact/conn_count_6/ConnnectBackupJ
872m 46m 15m S 0 1.2 0:05.67 /opt/google/chrome/chrome --type=renderer --lang=en-US --force-fieldtest=ConnCountImpact/conn_count_6/ConnnectBackupJ
866m 36m 12m S 0 0.9 0:10.46 /opt/google/chrome/chrome --type=extension --lang=en-US --force-fieldtest=ConnCountImpact/conn_count_6/ConnnectBackup
850m 23m 11m S 2 0.6 0:19.67 /opt/google/chrome/chrome --type=extension --lang=en-US --force-fieldtest=ConnCountImpact/conn_count_6/ConnnectBackup
267m 13m 7100 S 0 0.4 0:00.05 /opt/google/chrome/chrome --type=zygote
222m 9000 2084 S 0 0.2 0:00.92 /opt/google/chrome/chromeRe: Firefox 7 will use up to 50% less memory
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
Clearly, they are pulling the old "major version change marketing stunt" to catch up with a perceived lag in version numbers compared to other browsers. You see, apparently people think IE 9 must be vastly superior to FF 4... Personally, I think the time for version numbers should probably be over altogether. At this point I feel it's more productive to just tack a date string onto the thing and be done with it. For…
Did you read Mozilla's version number announcement a few months back? Version numbers aren't being used in marketing material anymore, so the user will rarely see them. The change in the version numbering corresponds to a new rapid release/update cycle. From the user's perspective, there are no versions, there is just Firefox.
I didn't read it, no. But looking at the website and the actual Firefox app right now, version numbers are still a big part of the picture. A release cycle doesn't become more rapid just because they're using major version numbers in place of minor ones. I get and support the idea behind a rapid release mechanism instead of holding back a release in order to wait on incomplete features, but still this version number thing seems like a stunt to me that has little to do with the actual release policy.
Re: Firefox 7 will use up to 50% less memory
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's interesting. Because every time I've seen Mozilla developers making note of memory improvements over the last few years, I run into someone claiming that every time "Firefox" and "memory usage" came up prior to whichever is current for the time, the developers steadfastly denied a problem. It's getting a bit like the mythical proslytizing vegan; I've run into far more people bitching about however many instanc…
for me it wasn't developers specifically, it was just vocal users. i've not seen much from mozdevs at all contemporaneously with the discussions.
> deny there's a problem, fix it, then promote how great your fix is
I can't think of a way this can be construed as an indictment against vocal users, or really, anyone except the developers (or marketing or management from the same organization).